Skip to main content

tv   Sportsday  BBC News  February 27, 2017 6:30pm-6:46pm GMT

6:30 pm
voted to leave the eu. he says that britons have been offered an overly optimistic vision offered an overly optimistic vision of what brexit will look like. hastily cobbled together. or we can seek a transitional relationship perhaps for three to five years which as nonmembers we would have to pay, and minimum option would involve staying in the customs union and submitting to the jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice. or, we can trade with the european union on a world trade organisation basis. the more one examines probabilities, the more contentious becomes the task of leaving. some of the most committed brexit supporters wished to have a clean break and trade only under wto rules. this would require tariffs on goods, with
6:31 pm
nothing to help services and nothing to inhibit non—tariff barriers and this would not be a panacea for the uk, it would be the worst possible outcome. but to those who wish to see us outcome. but to those who wish to see us adapt to a deregulated, low—cost enterprise economy, it is an attractive option and wholly consistent with their philosophy. however, it has worrying implications for public services, such as the national health service and for the vulnerable, who handle lighter to say, the government has pledged to help and i know how personally the prime minister is committed to this. so there is a choice to be made, a price to be paid. we cannot move to a radical enterprise economy without moving away from the welfare state. such a
6:32 pm
direction of policy, once understood by the public, would never command support. it would make all previous i’ows support. it would make all previous rows over social policy seem like a minor distraction. a new trade deal with europe will be hugely complex, no one should envy the secretary of state and his negotiators. some industries, cars, aerospace, hope for a special perhaps industry to industry deals for their exports to europe. the difficulties of this are legion. the chances of success are slim, not least since the german chancellor is likely to roll out sectoral deals and even if she doesn't, wto rules expect agreements to cover all trade, notjust a few hand—picked sectors. many
6:33 pm
practicalities arise. even a partial customs deal with europe would not eliminate the need for country of origin certificates or border checks oi’ origin certificates or border checks or certification that regulations are met or other frustrations, or certification that regulations are met or otherfrustrations, none of which exist at present. and any deal we reach must be agreed by the other 27 nations of the european union. each with their own national interest. no one can be certain how long this will take, a conclusion within two years is very optimistic. business needs to factor that into their plans. and domestic political hurdles arise as well. if cars and aerospace word to get favourable deals, why not textiles and widgets? how would the government sued the ire of those not receiving
6:34 pm
preferential treatment? and nor will three —— free trade deals with third world countries be that straightforward, even the most attractive options, political hazards. in washington, the prime minister discussed a deal with president trump and both leaders working which was excellent. but the omens are mixed. early actions confirm that president trump has put protection is at the heart of his trade policy, america first is more than a slogan. tariffs between the us and the uk are already minimal, there is little scope for lowering them further. the uk runs a healthy trade surplus with the united states. president trump may wish to narrow or eliminate that gap. that being so, british hopes should not being so, british hopes should not be set too high. nor will it be easy or quick to reach agreement on
6:35 pm
contentious issues such as medicine or cars. or beef, raised with growth hormones. in comes american beef, alt goal european subsidies. that isn't going to be an easy sell to the beef industry. and then of course china and india are both attractive candidates for enhanced trade but in negotiation, india, for sure, india will seek immigration concessions for students and non—students alike, which prima facie is in direct conflict with government plans. china, as i know from experience, is a tough negotiator and will strike a hard bargain. as she is the largest trading partner to 120 countries and the largest export market for 70 of them, a trade agreement with the united kingdom may not at this moment be one of her main priorities. the government must also
6:36 pm
replicate the 53 free—trade deals struck on our behalf by the european union, but only for members of the european union. they must be renegotiated, all 53 of them. so far, after eight months, only 12 are in play. there is a very long way to go. and the question arises, are 65 million britons likely to get the same favourable outcome as 500 million europeans? i set out these difficulties, not because i don't believe deal on a good deals can be done, some most certainly can and will be done, but to be realistic about the timescale, and the complexity of the huge task, the huge undertaking that lies ahead. it is crucial to business and to the
6:37 pm
public that our expectations are consistent with what can be achieved. it matters to the government as well, ministers must not overpromise. in two years‘ time, the united kingdom will be the first nation to leave the european union. this will be a real irony as the first proposal for this will be a real irony as the first proposalfor a this will be a real irony as the first proposal for a european this will be a real irony as the first proposalfor a european union came not as is generally supposed from a frenchman, but from an englishman. three and a quarter centuries ago, in 1693, william penn advocated a european parliament as a policy to end perpetual military conflict on the continent. it took 280 yea rs conflict on the continent. it took 280 years and two world wars to
6:38 pm
convince his fellow britons. 43 yea rs convince his fellow britons. 43 years later, the british people reverse that decision. let us hope for the futures of our and grandchildren that they were right to do so. thank you very much. applause. thank you very much for that hard—hitting and indeed sobering assessment of where we stand and what we might be going. that was the former prime ministerjohn major is saying that britons have been offered and an real and over optimistic vision of what brags that will look like, given that speech there at chatham house, he called for more charm and a lot less cheap
6:39 pm
rhetoric from the uk government towards the rest of the european union. let‘s get some analysis on this story with chris mason, who joins us from westminster. the second former prime minister talking about brexit and the lack of vision and there are concerns about what it means. what does it all mean when we hear them talking about this? it is fascinating. john major, characteristically mild mannered in his delivery but very spiky and the content his delivery but very spiky and the co nte nt of his delivery but very spiky and the content of what he had to say. painting a pretty negative picture, as he fears that, of the uk‘s future outside of the european union or at least the potential for it to be negative. to pick out, in headline terms, what he had to say in a speech lasting a little over half an hour, firstly, it is his view that
6:40 pm
there has been far too much optimism on the part of those who advocated leaving the european union and a lack of willingness and acknowledgement that there might be bumps in the road and some negatives. he is particularly critical of what he sees as an unnecessary tone to the political debate since the referendum. the desire from some as he sought to castigate and exclude those who have articulated concerns about brexit, suggesting that they are an patriotic or arrogant to articulate such a view. he made the case that their view isjust as such a view. he made the case that their view is just as relevant and sought after now as it was before the referendum and it should continue to be heard. also, it was quite interesting as he reflected on his experience of international negotiations as prime minister, albeit being 20 years ago in the past, as to what he sees the potential tricky negotiations to come and how they could shape really
6:41 pm
big political moments as the negotiations unfold. not least the talk around the divorce deal with the european union and how much money that could cost. i'm going to leave you for a moment. sirjohn major is actually taking questions from those listening to the speech. let us listening to some of that. the growing conflict that exist between the european parliament and many of the european nation state governments, there are lots of problems to overcome. i will tell you why i do not think it will break up. i don‘t think it will break up because it has been the most single ambition of the members of the european union for the last 50 years to reach a position where there was unity in europe. and if you look historically at why that happens, you understand the depth of how people feel about it. at the end of the second world war, all of europe was bankrupt. they looked around the world and they saw the power of the
6:42 pm
united states and they foresaw the wisest among them, the growing power of asia and in particular, china, and they realise that unless they united, they would become political pygmies ina united, they would become political pygmies in a world of giants. and that was the impetus behind the original seeds of what we now call the european union. successive generations have grown up with that on the continent, it is deeply imbued in their instincts in the continent in a way it never has been in the united kingdom. i do think whatever the difficulties, they will do everything they conceivably can to hang together, rather than break up. if they broke up, 50 years of policy would be wrecked and there would be complete chaos worried that economic chaos, if that were to happen. as far as nato is concerned, i think the united states will continue to put pressure on the europeans to increase their meagre contributions to the collective nato
6:43 pm
pool and i think they are right to do so. i think many of the european nations, who would not be free but for britain‘s preparedness to stand alone and the subsequent arrival of the mighty american power, they would not have been free. they have an obligation to pay their fair share of the bill and they are not doing so. i think they will be compelled to do so and i think nato will stick together. when you see the way that russia is misbehaving in the east, it is actually crucially important that native stick together and i think they need to look carefully at exactly what nato can do. i do think it will survive. i think the european union will survive through the difficulties that lie ahead and there are many and various and i think nato will, despite some of the grumpy noises being made about it at the present time. i believe that and i hope that. thank you. the lady on the frontier. thank you. laura
6:44 pm
kuenssberg, bbc news. you have made quite a serious charge accusing the government of misleading people about how easy this is going to be. do you think that is deliberate or is it naive? and if i may, you know at being or two about the internal machinations of the tory party, you have warned theresa may she will have warned theresa may she will have to face down the eurosceptics at some point, forgive my language, but to use your phase, when she faced her own asteroids at some point? you might say that, i couldn‘t possibly comment! laughter. i don't think there is a deliberate attempt to deceive, i think it is becoming apparent to people as they get further into negotiations, just how complex it says. the easy populist sound bites we got in the referendum campaign
6:45 pm
since europe exports more to us, they are bound to do a trade deal, is simplistic in the extreme. we actually exported 12% of our gdp to europe and they on average export 4% of the gdp to us. there is no doubt what is happening between the two andi what is happening between the two and i think those realities are becoming clearer and i would not charge by colleagues with a deliberate attempt to deceive in government. i think there was a lapse in detail... laughter. during the referendum campaign. sometimes it was quite a large lapse but i think in government the realities are becoming apparent but i think we have seen that. one practical example would be the remarks made by the secretary of state for exiting the secretary of state for exiting the european union and the other day, when he said, quite crisply and entirely accurately it seems to me, that despite our ambitions, despite


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on